Another point on Lawsuits

On Conn. Dept or public safety vs Doe (11/13/02) it was found that truthful information in the registry for those convicted of sex crimes is not a liberty interest. What about those NOT convicted? This is a troubling argument that I have been attempting to find everywhere.

Civil Lawsuits

Hey folks. I am currently researching how to write and file a lawsuit. if anyone has direction relating to the filing of a lawsuit 'Pro Se', post a link and I will happily research away. I am seriously considering how best to fight the HB 22 if it becomes law. I know that the District Court in Utah has already stated that such law is unconstitutional, but I feel that another lawsuit will need to be filed for these assholes to actually READ the Constitution.

Interesting.

I found this and was intrigued that after 80 years, we haven't learned a thing.

THE NEW YORK WORLD-TELEGRAM, December 17, 1934

"Adolf
Hitler's secret police, aided by the Elite Guards, began a nationwide
drive today to purge the Reich of sexual abnormality. They threw into
jail between 500 and 700 men accused of perversion. In recent
conferences of the party, Herr Hitler emphasized a determination to
stamp out sex perversion among all Nazi organizations. It was recalled
that after his purge of June 30, he made a pledge to German mothers
that their sons would never be contaminated if they joined his Storm
Troopers'."

As I said, Interesting.

Do as I say...

It seems that not everyone who sexually abuses gets to be a sex offender on the list. I see nothing regarding his inclusion on the list, nor do I think that they will do anything about it. 33 months is pathetic, and the judicial system should be ashamed for protecting one of its own like this. I guess 'protecting the public' only applies if it isn't someone that is an elected or appointed official.

Then how pathetic, they allow him to come in on June 15th??? If this was Joe Blow, he would have already be under the jail..

Story Here

HOUSTON -- Federal Judge Sam Kent is facing 33 months in prison for lying about sexually abusing some of his female employees.

“Apparently justice is for everyone,” said Cathy McBroom, the woman who decided to take on the federal judge and on Monday won.

McBroom, also known as “Complainant A” in court documents, says the ordeal has cost her marriage, her home and her mental health.

During an interview at her attorney's office, the 50-year-old expressed her gratitude for the judge’s punishment. She said she was also surprised at the $6,500 restitution visiting Judge Roger Vinson imposed.

McBroom says the abuse began in 2003 and she filed a complaint in 2004, after the worst and most dangerous episode occurred.

In her court statement, McBroom read, "After forcing himself upon me and asking me to do unspeakable things, he told me that pleasuring him was something I owed him. That was it for me."

Later she said that there are still some parts of the whole traumatic experience that she has not been able to talk about, even in therapy.

She described Judge Kent as being often, but not always, drunk when he confronted her. She said he would sometimes grope or attempt to conduct sexual acts with her. She also said he was later apologetic and promised not to repeat his behavior.

“He would brag constantly about his power and just about dare anyone to do anything against his will,” McBroom said. “I also clung to the hope that he was going to stop, because he would tell me he was going to stop.”

She says she did not come forward earlier because she feared retribution.

“I would just find ways to cope with it and what that meant to me was staying under his radar,” McBroom said. “It was a big conflict at home. Of course, my husband didn't want me to have to go to work every day and face that. I, on the other hand, didn’t want to have to give up my position.”

McBroom says she is still irritated by Kent's now recanted claim that the encounters were “enthusiastically consensual."

“Of course it was not. There was nothing consensual about it whatsoever,” McBroom said.

McBroom says finding a lawyer to oppose a federal judge was tricky. She says she didn't expect famed attorney Rusty Hardin would even agree to speak with her.

“It never occurred to me not to. You've all seen her now. How the hell would I have said ‘no’?” said Hardin.

Attorney Rusty Hardin, applauded McBroom’s courage.

“It was sexual abuse in the workplace and it goes on everyday all over this country. Every professional woman knows it does and only a few decide to pay the price to come forward,” Hardin said.

Kent’s former secretary, Donna Wilkerson, had also joined the suit, alleging similar abuses over seven years.

The deadline for any civil action expired last month.

McBroom has declined to seek any civil penalties. She says the case was never about money.

Kent was also fined $1,000 and ordered to pay $6500 in restitution to McBroom and Donna Wilkerson his former secretary.

As part of the plea agreement, five sex crime charges were dismissed.

Kent, who claims he has a drinking problem, plans to retire due to a disability. That would allow him to collect his full salary of roughly $170,000 a year for the rest of his life.

Many experts believe he will be impeached. If so, he would get nothing.

Kent is to surrender on June 15 to begin his sentence.